[monkeyfun]

It's especially such a farce because what do they expect? If trump said the sky is green and the ocean is red, you'd find scores of these useless faux-intellectuals trying to "prove" the truth, and each data point of evidence would simply be met with various forms of "no it isn't! The sky is green! The ocean is red!"

In their world, any "evidence" to the contrary must be manipulated or misinterpreted, because as we all know the sky is green, the ocean is -- oh, he said it's yellow now? And the sky is red? Hah, of course! We knew it all along, it was the plan, stupid!

And meanwhile...

Most of the democrats' tiny minds struggle to operate outside of a context of rigid rules and procedures. A context of arguing a point and getting at least some degree of fair debate in return.

But this is another age of populism. It doesn't matter what you argue, on either side. Debate transforms, serving only to transmit your message to your side, ideally while inspiring them and demoralizing the enemy. It matters that you seem confident and powerful while you say whatever you're saying. It matters that you seem invincible and indefatigable.

Their world won't be back for quite some time, assuming something at all like it sticks around. They'll keep operating like robots, not understanding why an excellent diss or crude mockery matters more than 1000 additional volumes of "proof" about something in contention.

[ithkuil]

These are loyalty tests. You prove you belong to the ingroup if you show you believe preposterous things. That's how cults and religions work.

We think this is stupid because it kinda is, but this behaviour is part of the human traits and possibly is adaptive behaviour to enable the very possibility of us living in large societies.

[satellite2]

It's a great comment thank you. The part about the changes that would have enabled us to scale as society is really brilliant. I've read a bit about this in historian theories but the focus is often very material (probably because that's what you have evidence of).

I've always been in awe at the (absolutely crazy if you ask me) concept of money. The fact that we accept to give up possessions or time in exchange for the promise that anyone in the future will provide something equivalent because we just show some token/proof (which in itself are intrinsically valueless: sticks, stones, minerals, papers, now bits...).

We've been educated to be a bit suspicious and maybe show a slight contempt for it, probably to avoid being inelegant and also particularly because a lot of big owner of it are seen as not necessarily deserving of it.

But from an evolutionary perspective it's absolutely stupefying. And at its core its extremely positive. It shows absolute trust in our peers. It's probably one of the few behavior that really binds us together.

One could argue that it's the actually one trait that really distinguish us from other animals.

[Vilian]

It's the age were who control the country is the one with most money, not votes, and because company bribery is accepted, don't matter how much Trump get mocked, social media algorithms aren't going to allow that to breach other bubbles, something is clearly wrong when politians ask for money note votesz it isn't a democracy anymlre

[Vilian]

It's the age were who control the country is the one with most money, not votes, and because company bribery is accepted, don't matter how much Trump get mocked, social media algorithms aren't going to allow that to breach other bubbles, something is clearly wrong when politians ask for money note votesz it isn't a democracy anymore

[parineum]

Who raised the most money in the last presidential election again?